pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21686 · v1 · pith:YPKENZ42new · submitted 2026-06-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Finite-shot operating windows for probabilistic error cancellation and Clifford data regression

Vicenzo Scavino This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 13:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error mitigationprobabilistic error cancellationClifford data regressionfinite-shot analysismean-square errorcalibration mismatchPauli observables
0
0 comments X

The pith

Finite-shot analysis finds a CDR-dominant window for error mitigation up to a bound scaling as 1 over calibration mismatch squared times noise strength.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares probabilistic error cancellation and Clifford data regression for estimating noisy Pauli observables under finite measurement shots. Exact PEC removes target bias at the cost of quasi-probability variance overhead, while population-linear CDR can reduce shot variance but leaves a calibration floor when training and target responses differ. The resulting competition produces a finite window of shot counts where CDR yields lower mean-square error, with the window's upper endpoint scaling proportionally to 1 over the square of the first-order mismatch times the noise parameter p. A separate theorem shows that response-blind affine CDR cancels first-order bias only when the target noise response itself is affine in the ideal observable value.

Core claim

Finite-shot mean-square-error boundaries establish a CDR-dominant operating window whose upper endpoint scales as B_PEC=CDR(p) proportional to 1 over delta one squared times p, together with a target-response projection theorem that response-blind affine CDR removes the first-order bias only when the target noise response is affine in the ideal target value.

What carries the argument

Mean-square-error competition between PEC quasi-probability variance overhead and CDR first-order calibration mismatch floor, together with the target-response projection theorem for affine CDR.

If this is right

  • The same mean-square-error formulation extends directly to second-order calibration and to commuting Pauli Hamiltonians.
  • Finite CDR training shots and residual PEC model bias can be incorporated without changing the operating-window structure.
  • Closed-form two-qubit calculations and QAOA simulations confirm the predicted no-mitigation, CDR-dominant, and PEC-dominant regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Device-specific shot budgets could be chosen by first estimating the effective calibration mismatch to locate the operating window.
  • The projection theorem implies that non-affine noise responses will retain an irreducible local calibration floor under standard affine CDR.
  • Extensions to non-commuting observables or higher-order mismatches would test how the window boundaries change with system size.

Load-bearing premise

The derivations assume an exact noise inverse for PEC bias removal and a quantifiable first-order mismatch between training and target noise responses for CDR.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment that measures mean-square errors of PEC and CDR estimates while varying total shots and first-order calibration mismatch to test whether the CDR-dominant regime terminates at the predicted scaling proportional to 1 over delta one squared times p.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21686 by Vicenzo Scavino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Closed-form operating regions for the two-qubit example. The gray region is no mitigation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Finite-shot QAOA comparison for the edge observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mismatch-scaling validation. The observed crossover scale follows the leading-order trend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Bootstrap boundary test. Ambiguity is concentrated near the predicted phase boundaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between the baseline edge observable and the full commuting MaxCut Hamil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Crossover prediction by graph size for the selected instance-robustness sweep. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Relative crossover error by graph family. Most finite crossovers are within the specified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pauli-channel robustness of the PEC/CDR crossover prediction using channel-specific PEC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Angle-sensitivity test across four selected QAOA angle pairs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Near-zero- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Finite-training-shot test. In the tested design, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Second-order crossover test. Root designs probe the first-order-calibrated regime, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Response-projection test over the frozen instance ensemble. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Finite-training shot-allocation test under the full CDR budget convention. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Device-model simulator results. Left: observed and predicted unmitigated=CDR crossing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Archived hardware-count analysis. Top: mitigated PEC residual magnitude across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum error mitigation on noisy devices is limited not only by residual bias but also by the shot noise and calibration errors introduced by the mitigation procedure itself. We derive finite-shot mean-square-error boundaries for probabilistic error cancellation (PEC), Clifford data regression (CDR), and no mitigation for noisy Pauli-observable estimates. Exact PEC removes the target bias under an exact noise inverse at the price of a quasi-probability variance overhead, whereas population linear CDR can have smaller target-shot variance but retains a calibration floor when the training and target noise responses do not match. This competition yields a finite CDR-dominant operating window whose upper endpoint scales as $B_{\mathrm{PEC}=\mathrm{CDR}}(p)\propto 1/(\delta_1^2p)$, where $\delta_1$ is the first-order CDR calibration mismatch. We further prove a target-response projection theorem showing that response-blind affine CDR removes the first-order bias only when the target noise response is affine in the ideal target value; otherwise a nonzero projection error gives an irreducible local calibration floor. The same mean-square-error formulation extends to second-order calibration, commuting Pauli Hamiltonians, finite CDR training shots, and residual PEC model bias. A closed-form two-qubit calculation and QAOA simulations support the predicted no-mitigation, CDR-dominant, and PEC-dominant regimes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives finite-shot mean-square-error (MSE) boundaries for probabilistic error cancellation (PEC), Clifford data regression (CDR), and no mitigation when estimating noisy Pauli observables. It shows that this competition produces a finite CDR-dominant operating window whose upper endpoint scales as B_PEC=CDR(p) ∝ 1/(δ₁² p), where δ₁ is the first-order CDR calibration mismatch. A target-response projection theorem is proved: response-blind affine CDR removes first-order bias only when the target noise response is affine in the ideal target value; otherwise a nonzero projection error remains. The MSE framework is extended to second-order calibration, finite CDR training shots, residual PEC model bias, and commuting Pauli Hamiltonians. Support is provided by a closed-form two-qubit calculation and QAOA simulations that reproduce the predicted no-mitigation, CDR-dominant, and PEC-dominant regimes.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the paper supplies first-principles, quantitatively usable guidance on the finite-shot regimes in which CDR is preferable to PEC or no mitigation, together with explicit scaling relations and a precise condition for bias removal. This is of direct practical value for near-term quantum error mitigation, where shot budgets are constrained. The work is strengthened by the closed-form two-qubit case and the reproduction of the predicted regimes in QAOA simulations.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the symbol p appearing in the scaling B_PEC=CDR(p) is not defined; a parenthetical clarification (e.g., “p = number of shots”) would improve immediate readability.
  2. [Abstract] The projection theorem is stated clearly in the abstract but its proof would benefit from an explicit statement of the affine assumption on the training set (currently implicit).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment, accurate summary of our contributions, and recommendation of minor revision. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper derives finite-shot MSE boundaries for PEC, CDR and no-mitigation estimates directly from variance expressions, obtains the CDR-dominant window upper endpoint scaling B_PEC=CDR(p)∝1/(δ₁²p) by comparing the resulting MSE terms under the stated first-order mismatch assumption, and proves the target-response projection theorem by explicit linear-algebra projection under the affine-response condition. These steps are presented as first-principles calculations with no reduction to fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. The same MSE formulation is then extended to second-order calibration, finite training shots and residual bias without circular re-use of the target result. The manuscript supplies independent closed-form two-qubit and QAOA verification, confirming the derivations remain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger extracted from abstract only; full paper may contain additional parameters or assumptions not visible here.

free parameters (1)
  • δ₁
    First-order CDR calibration mismatch parameter that sets the upper endpoint of the CDR-dominant window.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Exact noise inverse for PEC
    Invoked to guarantee target bias removal in PEC.
  • domain assumption Affine target noise response for CDR bias removal
    Central to the projection theorem; bias removal holds only under this condition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1300 out tokens · 32603 ms · 2026-06-26T13:47:01.121533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [2]

    In the two-dimensional target-response coordinates(µ0, βT ), the targets for which linear CDR is first-order calibrated form the affine hyperplane Ccal ={(µ 0, βT ) :β T =a 1µ0 +b 1}.(B13) For every target outside this set, bmis(p) =δ 1p+O(p 2), δ 1 ̸= 0.(B14) Thus anO(p 2)CDR residual is a structural calibration condition on the relation be- tween the tr...

  2. [3]

    generic mismatch

    For the population OLS predictorfp(x) =a ∗(p)x+b ∗(p)learned from this fixed training distribution, the target residual satisfies fp(µp)−µ 0 =O(p 2)(B15) if and only if the target is first-order calibrated,δ1 =β T −a 1µ0 −b 1 = 0. The second statement applies to OLS-CDR trained from the fixed distributionT; target- specific affine maps belong to a differe...

  3. [4]

    Each calibration row fits logB PEC=CDR againstlog(1/δ 2 1)at fixedp, so the leading-order law (53) predicts slope one

    Mismatch scaling and boundary uncertainty The mismatch-scaling experiment supports the leading-order prediction that CDR’s useful budget interval is controlled by calibration mismatch. Each calibration row fits logB PEC=CDR againstlog(1/δ 2 1)at fixedp, so the leading-order law (53) predicts slope one. The median observed slope is0.8959with IQR[0.8864,0.9...

    1935

  4. [5]

    The Hamiltonian CDR map uses the scalar-trained Hamil- tonian correction of Section VI

    Hamiltonian and instance robustness The baseline scalar edge observable is complemented by a Hamiltonian-level test, which replacesZ 0Z1 with the full commuting weighted MaxCut Hamiltonian and includes the co- variance terms from Section VI. The Hamiltonian CDR map uses the scalar-trained Hamil- tonian correction of Section VI. All non-boundary classifica...

  5. [6]

    The tested variants use positive channel- specific PEC inverses: N2a haspx :p y :p z = 2 : 1 : 1, N2b uses1 : 1 : 3, and N3 adds sparse correlatedXXandZZtwo-qubit Pauli terms

    Pauli-channel robustness The Pauli-channel robustness test verifies that the finite-shot prediction extends beyond the symmetric depolarizing closed form forΓQ. The tested variants use positive channel- specific PEC inverses: N2a haspx :p y :p z = 2 : 1 : 1, N2b uses1 : 1 : 3, and N3 adds sparse correlatedXXandZZtwo-qubit Pauli terms. 34 103 104 Predicted...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20765589 2048

  6. [7]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short-depth quantum cir- cuits,”Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 180509 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 2017

  7. [8]

    Endo , author S

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, “Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications,”Phys. Rev. X8, 031027 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031027 2018

  8. [9]

    Optimal resource cost for error mitigation,

    R. Takagi, “Optimal resource cost for error mitigation,”Phys. Rev. Research3, 033178 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033178

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033178 2021

  9. [10]

    Quasiprobability decompositions with reduced sam- pling overhead,

    C. Piveteau, D. Sutter, and S. Woerner, “Quasiprobability decompositions with reduced sam- pling overhead,”npj Quantum Inf.8, 12 (2022). doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00517-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00517-3 2022

  10. [11]

    Nature Physics , volume =

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, “Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse Pauli–Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors,”Nat. Phys.19, 1116–1121 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02042-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02042-2 2023

  11. [12]

    Czarnik, A

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Error mitigation with Clifford quantum- circuit data,”Quantum5, 592 (2021). doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592 2021

  12. [13]

    Learning-based quantum error mitigation,

    A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y. Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, “Learning-based quantum error mitigation,”PRX Quantum2, 040330 (2021). doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040330

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040330 2021

  13. [14]

    Unified ap- proach to data-driven quantum error mitigation,

    A. Lowe, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Unified ap- proach to data-driven quantum error mitigation,”Phys. Rev. Research3, 033098 (2021). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033098

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033098 2021

  14. [15]

    doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005 , url =

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, “Quantum error mitigation,”Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045005 (2023). doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 2023

  15. [16]

    Bultrini, M

    D. Bultrini, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Unifying and benchmarking state-of-the-art quantum error mitigation techniques,”Quantum 7, 1034 (2023). doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-06-1034

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-06-1034 2023

  16. [17]

    Testing platform-independent quantum error mitigation on noisy quantum computers,

    V. Russo, A. Mari, N. Shammah, R. LaRose, and W. J. Zeng, “Testing platform-independent quantum error mitigation on noisy quantum computers,”IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.4, 1–18 (2023). doi:10.1109/TQE.2023.3305232

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3305232 2023

  17. [18]

    Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algo- rithms?,

    S. Wang et al., “Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algo- rithms?,”Quantum8, 1287 (2024). doi:10.22331/q-2024-03-14-1287. 43

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-03-14-1287 2024

  18. [19]

    Takagi, S

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, “Fundamental limits of quantum error mitiga- tion,”npj Quantum Inf.8, 114 (2022). doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00618-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00618-z 2022

  19. [20]

    Takagi, H

    R. Takagi, H. Tajima, and M. Gu, “Universal sampling lower bounds for quantum error miti- gation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210602 (2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.210602 2023

  20. [21]

    Universal cost bound of quantum error mit- igation based on quantum estimation theory,

    K. Tsubouchi, T. Sagawa, and N. Yoshioka, “Universal cost bound of quantum error mit- igation based on quantum estimation theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210601 (2023). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.210601 2023

  21. [22]

    Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,

    Y. Quek, D. Stilck Franca, S. Khatri, J. J. Meyer, and J. Eisert, “Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,”Nat. Phys.20, 1648–1658 (2024). doi: 10.1038/s41567-024-02536-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02536-7 2024

  22. [23]

    Li \ and\ author S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, “Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,”Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.021050 2017

  23. [24]

    Quantum computation with universal error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor,

    C. Song et al., “Quantum computation with universal error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor,”Sci. Adv.5, eaaw5686 (2019). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw5686

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw5686 2019

  24. [25]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,

    A. Kandala et al., “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,”Nature567, 491–495 (2019). doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7 2019

  25. [26]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, “Digital zero noise extrap- olation for quantum error mitigation,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 306–316 (2020). doi:10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00045

    work page doi:10.1109/qce49297.2020.00045 2020

  26. [27]

    Extending quantum probabilistic error cancellation by noise scaling,

    A. Mari, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, “Extending quantum probabilistic error cancellation by noise scaling,”Phys. Rev. A104, 052607 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052607

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.052607 2021

  27. [28]

    Reduced sampling overhead for probabilistic error cancellation by Pauli error propagation,

    T. Scheiber, P. Haubenwallner, and M. Heller, “Reduced sampling overhead for probabilistic error cancellation by Pauli error propagation,”Quantum9, 1840 (2025). doi:10.22331/q-2025- 08-29-1840

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025- 2025

  28. [29]

    Faster probabilistic error cancellation,

    Y.-H. Chen, “Faster probabilistic error cancellation,” arXiv:2506.04468 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Theory of quantum error mitigation for non-Clifford gates,

    D. Layden, B. Mitchell, and K. Siva, “Theory of quantum error mitigation for non-Clifford gates,”Quantum10, 2003 (2026). doi:10.22331/q-2026-02-10-2003

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2026-02-10-2003 2003

  30. [31]

    Improving the efficiency of learning- based error mitigation,

    P. Czarnik, M. McKerns, A. T. Sornborger, and L. Cincio, “Improving the efficiency of learning- based error mitigation,”Quantum9, 1727 (2025). doi:10.22331/q-2025-05-05-1727

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-05-05-1727 2025

  31. [32]

    Extension of Clifford data regression methods for quantum error mitigation,

    J. Pérez-Guijarro, A. Pagès-Zamora, and J. R. Fonollosa, “Extension of Clifford data regression methods for quantum error mitigation,”IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.7, 1–22 (2026). doi: 44 10.1109/TQE.2026.3677541

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2026.3677541 2026

  32. [33]

    Machine learn- ing for practical quantum error mitigation,

    H. Liao, D. S. Wang, I. Sitdikov, C. Salcedo, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Machine learn- ing for practical quantum error mitigation,”Nat. Mach. Intell.6, 1478–1486 (2024). doi: 10.1038/s42256-024-00927-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00927-2 2024

  33. [34]

    Noise-agnostic quantum error mitigation with dataaugmentedneuralmodels,

    M. Liao, Y. Zhu, G. Chiribella, and Y. Yang, “Noise-agnostic quantum error mitigation with dataaugmentedneuralmodels,”npj Quantum Inf.11, 8(2025).doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00960- y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00960- 2025

  34. [35]

    Error statistics and scalability of quantum error mitigation formulas,

    D. Qin, Y. Chen, and Y. Li, “Error statistics and scalability of quantum error mitigation formulas,”npj Quantum Inf.9, 35 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00707-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00707-7 2023

  35. [36]

    Mitiq: A software package for error mitigation on noisy quantum computers,

    R. LaRose et al., “Mitiq: A software package for error mitigation on noisy quantum computers,” Quantum6, 774 (2022). doi:10.22331/q-2022-08-11-774

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-08-11-774 2022

  36. [37]

    Volumetric benchmarking of error mitigation with Qermit,

    C. Cirstoiu, S. Dilkes, D. Mills, S. Sivarajah, and R. Duncan, “Volumetric benchmarking of error mitigation with Qermit,”Quantum7, 1059 (2023). doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1059

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1059 2023

  37. [38]

    Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values,

    Y. Kim et al., “Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values,”Nat. Phys.19, 752–759 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01914-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01914-3 2023

  38. [39]

    PRX Quantum , volume =

    L. C. G. Govia et al., “Bounding the systematic error in quantum error mitigation due to model violation,”PRX Quantum6, 010354 (2025). doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010354

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010354 2025

  39. [40]

    Error mitigation thresholds in noisy random quantum circuits,

    P. Niroula, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. J. Gullans, “Error mitigation thresholds in noisy random quantum circuits,”Phys. Rev. B112, 024206 (2025). doi:10.1103/qsmz-9kkh

    work page doi:10.1103/qsmz-9kkh 2025

  40. [41]

    Robust design under uncertainty in quantum error mitigation,

    M. Prodius, P. Czarnik, M. McKerns, A. T. Sornborger, and L. Cincio, “Robust design under uncertainty in quantum error mitigation,”IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.7, 1–13 (2026). doi: 10.1109/TQE.2026.3680641

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2026.3680641 2026

  41. [42]

    Error-mitigation aware benchmarking strategy for quantum optimization problems,

    M. Demarty, B. Yang, K. Hammam, and P. Besserve, “Error-mitigation aware benchmarking strategy for quantum optimization problems,” arXiv:2601.18680 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  42. [43]

    Estimating shots and variance on noisy quantum circuits,

    M. Seksaria and A. Prabhakar, “Estimating shots and variance on noisy quantum circuits,” arXiv:2501.03194v2 (2025; revised 2026)

    arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    J. O. Berger,Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd ed., Springer (1985). 45

    1985